(September 11, 2015 at 4:39 am)Napoléon Wrote:(September 11, 2015 at 4:21 am)LastPoet Wrote: It takes time to resolve the confusion, so I think women can be as deadly as men in combat.
To be fair, is anyone in this thread saying they can't be?
It's more of an issue of requirements IMO and not really anything to do with gender. I know from when I was thinking about applying for the army myself a while ago that women straight up have different fitness requirements. For instance they don't have to score as highly on the bleep test to get accepted. But if they were ever called up and had to fight, would the situation they find themselves in be more forgiving because of the fact that they're female? No, ofcourse it wouldn't. So why do we have different requirements?
Whether women on the whole perform better or worse than men is besides the point because, as RocketSurgeon rightly suggests, it's down to individuals. And what they as an individual are physically capable of. It's more just a matter of physiology that most women are smaller/less physically strong than men on average. It doesn't mean they all are and to my knowledge nobody in this thread has suggested so.
Never said anything about that. On average close range combat is most likely won by a man, barring ofc close range friendly combat. In war people are tools and one needs to be wise using those tools. Have I told you that war is a horrible thing?
